Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Aitias 2

Comment on Comment by Heimstern
Why should it have to be either-or? He can lose the tools and still do the things you're suggesting. If good advice alone were sufficient to solve this problem, we wouldn't be here, would we? Friday (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I'm not optimistic about this advice working, but I see no harm in trying again. I'm arguably being a softie, but that's just my nature. Notice, though, that I said "rather than proposing desysopping", not "I oppose desysopping and propose this instead". That's because I'm not opposing desysopping; just suggesting something I would personally prefer to see happen instead. If it happens that he is desysopped, I won't be a bit surprised, nor will I shed tears. I hope he will then do the things I suggested (i.e., I hope he'll do that one way or another). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a pattern?
I've copied my statement from the Request for Arbitration, it is largley intact minus an additional comment and an e-mail I received. Statement by Tznkai

My interactions with Aitias have been brief, so I cannot say whether the problem I am about to describe is a single isolated incident, or indicative of a larger pattern of bad judgment.

On Febuary 26, I ran across an ANI thread concerning RMHED on a trolling spree. The incident in summary was RMHED was suffering burn out and needed to be blocked, reported by Aecis, and Caknuck blocking. Immediately after the block, several editors (myself included) started discussing the possibility of block extensions or unblock conditions. Most of us thought it was worthwhile to find away Throughout the course of the incident Aitias continued to urge for additional administrative intervention, and block extensions. Aitias aggressively argued against unblocking, although to be fair, he was called an "arsehole" repeatedly by RMHED. It became rapidly apparent to everyone except Aitiasthat he was inflaming the situation further. I perhaps too subtly invited Aitias to disengage from the discussion, and Wehwalt did so more bluntly as well. Aitias did not in fact disengage from the ANI thread or from the related thread on RMHED's talk page. Most disturbingly, even after RMHED's block was extended and it became clear that RMHED was done with talking, Aitias created an RfC/U (admin-viewable only, see also this notification). Which User:Spartaz deleted promptly. Aitias proceeded to argue that such deletion was abusive. It is clear to me that Aitias executed terrible judgment. Admins need to know when to back down - and more than other users, they must be able to let go from situations - avoid kicking users when they are down. I'd like to think this is an isolated incident, but if it is not, I strongly urge Aitias to give up his tools until he is reconfirmed by RfA.--Tznkai (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Originals for cross reference:
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive517
 * Old version of User talk:RMHED


 * The concerns now I have are the concerns I had then. I further note that Aitias came out of Arbitration and returned more or less head first back into administration duties. This is despite an admonition by arbcom and just squeaking by without getting desysopped. I may or may not congeal this into a full outside view while I read the other views.--Tznkai (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * An additional concern, I saw Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive517 while rereading the original threads I posted above. It seems the most recent flap on AN with Eric Barbour is a repeat.--Tznkai (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close
This RFC has largely been rendered moot by the Arbitration Committee motion; and Aitias' recent log actions indicate he may be planning a wikibreak of an indefinite nature. I would suggest closing this. –xenotalk 15:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded Spartaz Humbug! 17:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Arbcom handling this was what I suggested anyway. Regards  So Why  17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold until motion is logged and executed.--Tznkai (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, please hold till then. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt. RFC to be closed pending the ArbCom motion. –xenotalk 03:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a common principle that the same dispute should not simultaneously be in multiple stages of conduct dispute resolution (i.e. at WQA and RFC and ArbCom) - this is not (or at least, no longer is) an exceptional dispute either. In this case, it is being dealt with both in RfC and by ArbCom. Such RfCs have been closed with or without a motion to close, except if ArbCom seem like they will not handle this (or have not accepted to handle it), or except in certain other circumstances (such as by the request of the RfC-subject). In the current circumstances, I don't think anyone is (or can be) satisfied that the exceptions apply - there's no basis to keep this RfC on admin-conduct open for any longer. As a result, this RfC is now closed and archived accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)